Let's see here. פרק א משנה טו. I'll come back to the end of at least some of the intervening mishnayot. שמאי אומר עשה תורתך קבע. אמור מעט ועשה הרבה. והוי מקבל את כל האדם בסבר פנים יפות.
What's sever panim yafot? The Rambam in De'ot says that שישא ויתן עם הבריות בנחת ובדברים ערבים ומצוחים. And he should be gentle in his interactions and also in his de'ot as well. פרק ב הלכה ז. Take a look at the Rambam, פרק ב הלכה ז. לא יהיה אדם בעל שחוק והתל. לא עצב ואונן אלא שמח. כך אמרו חכמים שחוק וקלות ראש מרגילים לערוה. וציוו שלא יהיה אדם פרוץ בשחוק ולא עצב ומתאבל אלא מקבל את כל האדם בסבר פנים יפות.
The Rambam says he should be besimcha, not frivolous, lightheaded. But on the other hand he shouldn't be morose. He should be same'ach. But now in our perek what we have again, והוי מקבל את כל האדם בסבר פנים יפות. And later in פרק ג משנה יב, Rabbi Ishmael omer הוי קל לראש ונוח לתשחורת והוי מקבל כל אדם בשמחה.
Gimel Yud-Beis. So when the Rambam in De'ot, given that the Rambam said earlier a person shouldn't be a ba'al sechok, he shouldn't be עצב ואונן אלא שמח. So why did he quote the mishnah from Perek Gimel? Why not say that הוי מקבל כל אדם בשמחה? Why does he opt for the for our mishnah and not the mishnah in Perek Gimel? And for that matter, the question's what's the difference between the two mishnayot? Is it just that the Tanna used to be mezarez on the same midot of the status quo? Then it's just shinui leshonot? So in Halacha Zayin here again, if you have, take a look at the Rambam. פרק ב הלכה ז. לא יהיה אדם בעל שחוק והתל. לא עצב ואונן אלא שמח. כך אמרו חכמים שחוק וקלות ראש מרגילים לערוה. וציוו שלא יהיה אדם פרוץ בשחוק ולא עצב ומתאבל אלא מקבל את כל האדם בסבר פנים יפות.
The Rambam repeats himself, no? לא יהיה אדם בעל שחוק. Then he starts all over again. וציוו שלא יהיה אדם פרוץ בשחוק. Lo atzev ve'onein. Lo atzev umitabel. Look at the differences. pshat? And lechora is as follows: The mishnah in Sanhedrin referring to Harugei Beis Din, the relatives of Harugei Beis Din, so the mishnah in מ"ו עמוד א' going over to Amud Bais says velo hayu misablin, that the krovim of Harugei Beis Din don't observe aveilus, but onenin. But they are onenin, שאין אנינות אלא בלב. So the lashon onen refers to an inner state. It doesn't refer to nihugim, it doesn't refer to behavior, it doesn't refer to practical expressions, it refers to an inner state. שאין אנינות אלא בלב. And this is being contrasted with velo hayu misablin. Ah. So it's like this. Look again here in halacha zayin. So the first time around the Rambam says when he's dismissing one extreme he says lo otzev veonen. The second time when seemingly he's repeating himself he changes to not lo otzev veonen but lo otzev umisabel. So the vort is like this. The first time the Rambam is talking about what the mida beinonis in terms of a person's inner state. Simcha is vera'acha vesamach belibo. Simcha refers to a person's... it's descriptive of a person's inner state. So the Rambam begins לא יהא אדם בעל שחוק והתלה lo otzev veonen. Otzev can have either... the semantics of otzev are such that they can refer to a mood, to an inner state, or they can refer to a countenance, to vibes that a person gives off. Ela sameach. So here the Rambam is talking about what a person's again, inner state is supposed to be. What the person should be internally. Says the Rambam, וציווה שלא יהא אדם פרוץ בשחוק as opposed to ba'al schok. What's the difference? Ba'al schok refers to the person and parutz bischok refers to the behavior. Velo otzev, he's talking about the behavior, so he changes onen, שאין אנינות אלא בלב the mishnah says, he changes onen to umisabel. Because aveilus consists of nihugei aveilus. ולא עצב ומתאבל אלא... ah. So there are two mishnayos. One says הוי מקבל כל אדם בשמחה. The other says besaver panim yafos. But simcha means simcha again, especially here in the way the Rambam is using it, simcha means something which is again internal. In the seifa now of halacha zayin, right? The second bava here in halacha zayin, the Rambam is no longer talking about the person's inner state, he's talking about the conduct, about the behavior, so he says not הוי מקבל כל אדם בשמחה, but הוי מקבל כל אדם בסבר פנים יפות. So the Rambam takes... again, it's lashon mikra which the Rambam adopts when he talks about mitzvat simcha. Again, it's not his coinage, it's lashon mikra. But in פרק ו' הלכה י"ז in Hilchos Yom Tov. Vav Yud Zayin. שבעת ימי הפסח ושמונת ימי החג עם שאר ימים טובים כולם אסורים בהספד ותענית. וחייב אדם להיות בהן שמח וטוב לב.
The Rambam has that double face, right? He defines mitzvat simcha as sameach vetov lev. Again you have it beginning in the Chumash: תחת אשר לא עבדת את ה' אלהיך בשמחה ובטוב לבב.
And then you have it in Nevi also, but I think in Melachim by the Chanukas Beis HaMikdash that everyone goes back לאהליהם שמחים וטובי לב, vetovei lev or uvesuvei lev or whatever it goes, but you have it's it's it's a phrase from Tanakh that the Rambam uses to define mitzvah simcha. But what what is each what is each part of the phrase connote? So the pashut is that again as you see here in Hilchos Deios that the Rambam uses simcha as the psukim do, again it's not it's not in Chumash you have you have like this elsewhere in Tanakh also that simcha's balev. But veracha vesamach belibo, נתת שמחה בלבי מעת דגנם ותירושם רבו. It's Dovid HaMelech said that I just made that up but something along those lines. Dovid HaMelech said something along those lines. Again it's nasata simcha belibi. Simcha's balev. So the Rambam is saying that mitzvah simcha's Yom Tov consists of these two elements, these two components. It's supposed to be an internal, an inner experience, an internal state of being. But it's also supposed to express itself in the in the nihugim. Tov is something outward, external. So l'chora that's what the two mishnayos are, and that's why the Rambam heyos that he's quoting the mishnah in the in the part of the halacha which is dealing with hanhaga rather than than inner deiah, so he quotes our mishnah of the besever panim yafos. I don't know if this exactly has to do with the Rambam, but does the Rambam would the Rambam say that there is that if you don't feel happy this inside that you should put on like you should be fake on the outside? Like be fake happy on the outside? No, but you should drink some wine. I don't know if you have to, you know, paste a paste like that, but a schtikel flesh and a little bit of wine, yes. If if the Rambam tells us that a person shouldn't be a baal s'chok or or you shouldn't be sad internally, does he need to tell us that he shouldn't be sad externally? So so maybe, I don't know, maybe maybe a person could have thought like this. I mean they're they're not repetitious in the following sense. Let's say a person is is not a baal s'chok. Not a baal s'chok. And the question is there's I don't know some kind of reunion with people who have sort of gone a different path in life, but you know you're supposed to be murev briyos. But that reunion is going to be a reunion where everyone's going to be s'chok. So even as a one-time thing you know the person's not supposed to is not supposed to be doing that. So they're not as a one-time thing as a you know there's really no such thing as a one-time thing because everything a person does you know leaves an imprint on on him. But but you know even as a kaviyachol one and done, a person shouldn't do it. And even for a mitzvos? If it's not warranted, if it's not I mean rachmana litzlan when a person has aveilus he's supposed to be sad, and there are times like on Tisha B'Av a person is supposed to be sad. But if a person is not supposed to be sad, then he should be doing his best not to be sad, he should be doing his best to neither inwardly be sad nor be I guess the situations which require it, the person if he's going through nichum aveilim the person doesn't go in with a besever panim yafos. But if the situation doesn't warrant it, then. I think we're already answered the kasha why don't we need the mishnah why does the Rambam transcribe the mishnah from the third chapter? Because he's quoting because for whatever reason he's not interested in quoting the mishnah in the first half of the halacha, he's only quoting the mishnah in the second half of the halacha at the point see. Again what we distinguish when we ask the question so you read it as one halacha. And then we said no, it's not one halacha just with hazarah with reinforcement, there's two different points. So now that we see that there's two different points, so then הוי מקבל את כל האדם is not coming on the heels of ella sameach, it's coming on the heels of what Yochanan Hu-ga is. So what Yochanan Hu-ga is in terms of greeting people, so the mishna that describes Yochanan Hu-ga is be-sever panim yafot, as opposed to mishna in perek gimmel which describes greeting people be-simcha. Right, which again certainly in context of the way the Rambam is using simcha here wouldn't be saying what he wants to say in the second perek. What's the definition of simcha? I don't know if there's a one-word definition, there's a positiveness, a serenity, an appreciation of the bracha of life, of Torah, mitzvot, that sort of and that being in touch with all that gives a certain, you know, equilibrium that and it helps us keep other things in perspective. Okay, so I can't find my car keys, it is what it is, but that general... Does it use the lashon of avelut? Isn't it also kim'lei? So yes, but clearly as you see in that mishna in Sanhedrin mentioned also, when used in juxtaposition to aninus and in contradistinction to aninus, it goes that avelut also includes nihugei, nihugei avelut. So then that I think the Rashi has by the leshonot for the different types of war or something that a person has, that if it's this word used next to that word it means one thing, used next to the other word it means a different thing. So clearly when you're distinguishing as the mishna in Sanhedrin does and the Rambam is no question he's using the leshonot al pi that mishna in Sanhedrin, when you're using the lashon avelut in juxtaposition and contrast to aninus, so הא דשמעתא אין אנינות אלא בלב, so then what you're using avelut to mean is nihugim. What's the hiddush to be happy-happy? Where is that, what's that Torah coming to teach? Very good question. There's a profound insight into human psychology from the Gra. The Gra says like this: the gemara in Berachot in the first perek juxtaposes two pesukim, both from Shlomo HaMelech. One is מצא אשה מצא טוב, and another is מוצא אני מר ממות את האשה. So the Gemara says that in Eretz Yisrael after Sheva Brachos I think that they would ask the chosson matza o motze. Meaning it's not a contradiction between the two pesukim. It depends upon—it depends upon the character and caliber of the ishah. Whether that—that, you know, the right wife is matza tov and the wrong wife is mar mi-mavet. So עד כאן דברי גמרא. But the Gaon says but there's something else that the—again you know that the pesukim refer to two different types of women, different types of—of wives. So the Gaon says but the Gemara doesn't comment on something else. The first posuk is in the past tense and the second posuk is in the present tense. So why—why that? מצא אשה מצא טוב in the past tense and the מר ממות את האשה is u-motze ani is in the present tense. So says the Gaon like this, profound insight into—into human psychology. The Gaon says when—when bracha comes into our life so b'shato we recognize it and then very soon thereafter we take it for granted. So if—if the ishah whom—whom one marries is one about whom the posuk would be quoted that the way a person relates to it as מצא אשה מצא טוב, yeah, yeah, so many years ago 5, 10, 20, 30 however many years ago, matza yeah, yeah. But he doesn't live with a sense of bracha once a person takes things for granted. We—we take the—we take bracha for granted. Again when we first receive it so in hachi nami there's—there's an excitement, there's an appreciation, you know when you get engaged it's exciting. Five years later there's too much soup—too much salt in the soup. You know. Might do this too much, could be this too much salt. You talk about this too much. So the Gaon says mah she-ein kein when something negative comes into our life so we don't—never take that for granted. We're always bristling, we're always annoyed, we're always frustrated, we're always—we're always upset about it. So that's why that's in—in the present. It's a gevaldig wort. The Gaon doesn't mean that it's a gezeiras hakasuv that a person has to be that way. He means that the pesukim are saying that if—if we're not—mindful of it that we'll slip into that—that modus vivendi. Not—not that that's a fate that—that can't be avoided. It's something that we're susceptible to. So if a person has that—so a person cannot be be-simcha also. If a person takes the bracha of being alive for granted, okay, so then I'm not earning as much money as—as I want to earn. I just got a parking ticket. But—but I can only be all upset about that if I take all the bracha for granted. If a person takes the bracha of ha-bocher banu for granted, so then a person can easily end up not—not be-simcha. There are plenty of annoying things and—in—in life. It takes 10 seconds for your computer to start instead of 5 seconds, for goodness sake! Okay. If you have the—the posuk's whole perspective on it then—then we can deal with it.